MU honors the 2009-2010 Warriors

Marquette hosted its annual basketball banquet last night at The Al. With more than 500 in attendance a series of awards were handed out, punctuated by Lazar Hayward being named the team's MVP for the season. Surely the highlight of the evening was this excellent video recapping highlights from last season.

2008-2009 Recap - The Changing Offense

We previously covered the breakdown of the Marquette offense and what made it tick. However, it's not as though the offense was a static aspect of the season... clearly the team played worse at some spots and better in others.

How did the offensive performance change throughout the season?


The graph above is a moving 5-game average of our offensive efficiency against Top 100 opponents. The season average for efficiency shows up in the dashed red line, so one can see the points where the team was below season average and above season average. To dig in deeper, we're going to look at four separate points.

• Villanova #1, which represents mostly the non-conference schedule but is a low point offensively
• at Providence, which was the high water mark for the season offensively
• at Georgetown. This game was down slightly, but still above average for offensive efficiency. The key here is that it was the last full game with Dominic James
• Missouri, which was obviously the final game of the season
  

Breaking down the changes in performance for these four games


It's kind of an eye chart, but here is the key to the colors. Red is an area where that factor is worse than season average, and green is an area better than season average.

#1 - Pace. As we saw with its modest impact on efficiency, pace didn’t have a significant impact on offensive performance. There was no strong trend over time relating to offensive performance, and we can see pace being both above average and below average for strong and weak offensive periods.

#2 - eFG%. Again, as covered last week, eFG% has the biggest impact on offensive performance, and that shows up further here. The team's eFG% was below average on the worst mark of the season, well above average at both points, and then well below average in the final game of the season. Please note that after James went out, our eFG% went into a nose dive for the rest of the season. (of course, our opponents had something to do with that too).

#3 - Turnover Rate. Apart from eFG%, this was the biggest change from the Villanova game through the Providence game. Protecting the ball was a significant strength for Marquette, but it wasn't early in the season. There was a slight worsening effect in TO% after James got injured, but not enough to make a difference.

#4 - Offensive Rebounding Percentage. Interestingly enough, this was worse than average in both of the periods (@PC, @GU) that were positive efficiencies. There is almost an inverse relationship between offensive efficiency and offensive rebounding percentage, but that’s misleading. A better interpretation is that MU was better at offensive rebounding once James went out and Jimmy Butler got more playing time. This factor helped offset slightly the poor effective field goal percentage.


#5 - Free Throw Rate. As mentioned before, despite the large number of free throw attempts we made, there was only a limited impact on our offensive efficiency. Similar to offensive rebounding, this was worse in the good efficiency periods and better in the poor offensive efficiency periods.

Summary

At the end of the season, Marquette was better than average on turnovers, offensive rebounding, and free throw rate. However, none of those areas were enough to offset the poor effective field goal percentage. This information also adds more backing that although Marquette was best in class for protecting the ball and getting to the free throw line, only the turnover rate had a significant impact on their results.

It was the eFG%, which was frequently mediocre, that had the largest impact on offensive performance. That's probably my biggest takeaway from this analysis... there's little that can be done with the other factors to overcome poor effective field goal percentage.

2008-2009 Recap - The Offense

I've been breaking down the numbers associated with the season that just ended. The point was trying to really understand what made Marquette go last year.

Before diving in too much, here's a quick look at the methodology. First, I am only including the data against Top 100 opponents. (Sorry, Presbyterian). Second, a lot of the data that I'll track shows a moving 5-game average. In other words, the trend will reflect the previous five games worth of data.

Let's break down the offense

Below are Marquette's season averages against the final Top 100 opponents compared against the Pomeroy full-season numbers (in italics). None of this information should be a surprise, but it's helpful to recap.

Pace - 68.5 (vs Pomeroy 68.4)
eFG% - 50.1 (vs Pomeroy 51.2%, #85)
TO% - 15.6 (vs Pomeroy 16.5%, #10)
OR% - 30.9 (vs Pomeroy 34.8%, #97)
FTR - 44.8 (vs Pomeroy 45.4, #12)

When we look at these figures, two outstanding areas for Marquette really stand out. First, not only was MU's ability to protect the ball great, but it was even better against the top 100 opponents. Second, the team's ability to get to the free throw line was also consistently excellent. Two areas where MU was only pedestrian (eFG% and OR%), however, did get worse against the better opponents.

Now that we know the performance of the squad on the key areas, how much did each area contribute towards offensive efficiency (and points per game)?

Efficiency Contribution (PPG Contribution)

Pace = 27.6 (18.9 ppg)
eFG% = 73.7 (50.5 ppg)
TO% = -30.0 (-20.5 ppg)
OR% = 28.8 (19.7 ppg)
FTR = 10.1 (6.9 ppg)

What does this tell us? Making a high percentage of shots was by far the greatest impact on points per game calculation. This, among other reasons, is why I tend to yell at the TV when I see a shot early in the clock or a long two . Marquette's turnovers, being as good as they were at protecting the ball, still ended up costing the team about 20 points per game. Marquette's offensive rebounds contributed about 20 points per game. What really stands out to me, however, is that the much vaunted ability to get to the line only had a limited impact on points per game.

The marginal value of a Free Throw Attempt (and other things)

How much was a free throw attempt worth? Or an offensive rebound, for that matter?

Average (Marginal Contribution)

68.5 possessions per game. (Each possession worth 0.3 points.)
12 turnovers per game. (Each turnover cost the team 1.7 points.)
12 offensive rebounds per game. (Each offensive rebound worth 1.6 points)
27 free throw attempts per game. (Each FTA worth 0.3 points.)

I left out field goals made because the math is based on making a percentage of field goals, and when I do the calcs it shows that a made field goal is worth 1.9 points. Thinking of how to explain it makes my head hurt.

Anyways, think about these numbers in the context of various games. MU beats St. Johns by only 14 points, with Lazar (five turnovers) and McNeal (four turnovers) coughing it up. Jimmy Butler has ten offensive rebounds against Syracuse. Wesley Matthews takes 18 FTA against Tennessee, out of 35 total MU FTA, and Marquette still loses by twelve with only 68 points.

Summary
Although Marquette's strengths were in the ability to protect the ball and get to the free throw line, it was actually their ability to make a high percentage of shots that played the biggest role in efficiency. Unfortunately, this aspect of MU's game was not at an elite level. Furthermore, although Marquette was able to get to the line at a high rate, the overall contribution to the team's success was minimal and may have been overemphasized.

In a subsequent post, I'll take a look at how Marquette's efficiency changed through the season, and try to understand which of the four factors played the biggest role in transitions. eFG% will be biggest, as covered here, but what else changed during the season?

Last night proved just how good Marquette was this year

Duke … welcome to the Big East.

I was almost still too sick from the Missouri loss to watch the games last night, but thank goodness I did.

After watching the four games last, is there any doubt Marquette would have had a shot to win ANY other conference in the US this year except the Big East?

Reflect on last night's games. Marquette was eliminated from the Big East tournament by Villanova on a last second shot. Last night, that same Villanova team beat the ACC TOURNAMENT CHAMPION DUKE by 23 points. You're telling me Marquette couldn’t have won the ACC tournament?

Marquette was eliminated from the NCAA tournament in the final seconds by Missouri. That same Missouri team beat the Conference USA champion Memphis, ranked No. 1 by Pomeroy, by 11 points to advance to the Elite Eight. In their six tournament games so far (Big 12 and NCAA), Marquette has been by far their closest challenge – Missouri’s margins in those games have been +21 Texas Tech, +19 Cornell, +13 Baylor, +11 Memphis, +8 Oklahoma State, and only +4 Marquette.

True, Marquette didn’t win the close games against great/hot teams – but the measure of how great this squad was is that they played at an incredible level to make them close games. Just reflect on how much BETTER Marquette was in their two narrow tournament losses than two No. 2 seeds – Duke and Memphis – were in losing by 11 and 23 points.

Good and bad criticisms

There have been some fair criticisms of MUs team by Chicosbailbonds, Championshipsmatter and others this year that proved accurate – despite the incredible trio at guard, the team couldn’t go deep without a center and with no depth. Fair enough, those proved to be accurate.

But there are also silly criticisms by others; 1) blaming the Three Amigos instead of a lack of depth/big men for not being able to pull out close games, 2) arguing that if we bloggers stay angry and not content with “mediocre” results it will somehow make the team better as if the team won’t try their hardest unless irate posts are blogged, and finally; 3) no one will remember the Three Amigos because fans only remember deep NCAA runs and Conference and Tournament titles.

Based on that last criteria, how many of Marquette’s seasons are memorable for blog commenter James? Assuming a deep run means at least three NCAA wins, so it takes 3 NCAA wins or a conference title to be "memorable," there have been five memorable seasons for James; 1974, 1977, 1994, 1997 and 2003. So less than one of every 18 seasons is memorable. Let’s say James considers TWO NCAA wins a deep run – at that point you can add 1955, 1969 and 1976, meaning Marquette has had 8 memorable seasons – less than one in every 11 seasons!

And what of the idea that MU would have had to finish in 1st place of 16 teams in the best conference ever this year for it to be a "memorable," season? How about the memories from just competing for the title until James' injury in the first conference to ever put FIVE teams in the Sweet 16, three of which already have advanced to the Elite 8.

The bottom line is, anyone who complains about the past four years is spoiled.

Why the last 4 years will be remembered

To understand just how well we’ve had it the past four years, consider this:

Marquette is one of only EIGHT teams in the country (out of 343) to finish the last three seasons ranked. The others are Kansas, Memphis, UNC, Pitt, UCLA, Louisville and Butler. No other fans in the country get to root for a team that has finished ranked three years in a row.

As you may recall, MU also got enough votes the Three Amigos freshman year to finish 33rd in the country. How many teams have received votes in the final AP poll for four years in a row? Only nine: Duke, Kansas, Memphis, Michigan State, UNC, Pitt, Texas A&M and UCLA.

And I'll say it again - this is the only group that has ever beat 14 ranked teams in a four-year stretch.

Either way, this team will be remembered

Let’s get serious, this team will long be remembered. If the subsequent team drops in the rankings in the brutal Big East, it could be remembered as the ONLY team besides Pittsburgh to win at least 10 games EVERY year from 2006 to 2009. No other Big East team has done that all four years, so no other class can compete with Marquette’s graduating class.

If Marquette does go to new heights, the Three Amigos will be remembered as the guys who got Marquette over the Big East hump and made Marquette a place that new recruits would want to go. Do you really think any of the blue chippers who will be on campus next year would have considered Marquette if the Three Amigos had not shown up and MU had been flattened the first couple of years in the Big East?

Thanks Three Amigos! Thanks Dwight for giving us our only muscle these past few years. I really don’t know what we would have done this year without your defensive minutes and ability to muscle up with the likes of Cunningham.

At full strength, you were the No. 8 team in the country, and even with Dominic out/playing hurt, you were on the verge of the Sweet 16 and left it all on the floor in giving us two memorable efforts against a couple of 7-footers, and a Missouri team that has flattened everyone else including Memphis. Every year 342 of 343 teams end on a down note, but you left it all on the floor the last two years.

For the rest of the year - GO BIG EAST!

A look back with an eye on the future

Six days after the toughest post-season loss I can remember, the numbness still remains. Initially after the loss I figured time would quickly heal the wound, and I'd enthusiastically look forward to what is always an interesting off-season with MU -- not to mention the promise of next season.

Oh, if that could be so.

Truth is, the Stanford defeat was MU's most painful post-season loss since the 1978 upset to Miami (Ohio). This loss will ache for quite a while - - that's what happens when a program is flying high and has its wings clipped just before reaching new heights. And sure, there's been plenty of debate about how MU lost -- there's never a shortage of opinions about this team when they lose a close game. In watching the replay a couple of times this week on DVR, I have no complaints. MU's best player, and one of the hottest players in the country, had an open look at the end of regulation and another open look with a few seconds left in OT; neither shot fell. Despite that, it took an NBA lottery pick making a remarkable shot to beat MU -- a shot he released as he slid behind the backboard towards the baseline, out-of-bounds. In the end, MU came up short against a very good team.

Still, what the loss won't do is cloud the progress the Marquette program made during the 2007-2008 season. While the team did not demonstrate the kind of watershed breakthrough many expected, the trajectory of the program remains impressive, particularly given the strong core of returning talent and a balanced recruiting class arriving this fall.

Let's recap the highlights:

• 25-10 record, the third time a Crean-coached team reached that lofty wins plateau;
• MU won at Wisconsin;
• MU beat Notre Dame twice;
• For the first time, MU advanced to the Big East Tournament semifinals;
• MU advanced in the NCAA tournament;
• The emergence of Maurice Acker. Acker played his best ball in the last month of the season - a good sign for the long-term health of the program;
• Jerel McNeal. What can you say, he was extraordinary when his team needed him most;
• Dominic James. Folks will complain about his shooting -- which is abominable -- but James emerged as MU's top on-the-ball defender this year, and his better than 2:1 assist to turnover ratio is an indication of how much his overall game improved year to year;
• Trevor Mbakwe. I'm indifferent about Crean's decision to rip the redshirt off late in the season, but in a limited role Mbakwe appears to be the out-of-area rebounder MU has lacked for years, and plays bigger than his size;
• Lazar Hayward. More often than not, players improve the most between their freshman eand sophomore seasons. That was the case for Hayward, who's diverse offensive game and rebounding toughness were welcome sights on a team that once relied solely on its backcourt.

Now, let's recap a few of the underwhelming points from the season:

• Eleven Big East wins. While MU secured more Big East conference wins than ever before, the team also played more Big East games than ever before. Eleven wins is laudable but considering the veteran bunch MU returned this year, at least a dozen wins and competing for the Big East crown were more reasonable expectations;
• Roster limitations. Coming into the season with all of its key contributors returning, the sky appeared to be the limit for the Golden Eagles. However a redundant roster, the lack of skilled big men, and the absence of outside shooting continue to define this group. Crean's strategy of building an athletic roster of players with limited offensive diversification and a hunger for aggressive defense has proven to be a smart formula for keeping the program in the upper half of the Big East -- a major accomplishment. Despite this, there's a fear that the program will plateau at the present level unless that roster building approach is refined;
• Poor production from the seniors: Before the season started I was bullish on the team in part because of the return of two key seniors, Barro and Fitzgerald. My enthusiasm was misplaced. Unlike many of the seniors during TC's tenure, these guys failed to deliver in their final season much like Sanders, Townsend and Merritt struggled in lead roles for the 2003-2004 team. Barro, relegated to a reserve role for most of the campaign, struggled mightily in that new capacity. Even as a late-season starter, he never recaptured the promise he showed during his junior season. Fitz? Despite leading the nation in the dubious category of "fouling a shooter on a made basket", Fitzgerald rarely displayed the confidence of a senior in any aspect of his game. His inability to sink open shots or contribute consistently with a solid floor game greatly hindered the team;
• David Cubillan: He was my pick to struggle this year, and he followed suit. After his 13 point effort in the win against Pittsburgh in February, Cubillan became one of MU's most ineffective players in the last month of the season. Cubillan scored a combined 14 points in MU's last eleven games, shooting 16% from the field (5 for 31) amidst declining playing time. With the emergence of Maurice Acker, the impending arrival of Nick Williams and Tyshawn Taylor, as well as a healthier Scott Christopherson it is difficult to see Cubillan contributing to this team next season.
  

By any measure, the positives greatly outweigh the negatives and the state of the program is solid to great. This past season was a memorable ride. While there are areas where the program needs to demonstrate improvement -- specifically in recruiting a broader mix of skills -- the formula largely works, but is it enough going forward?

Coming up in the next couple of days we'll look at Crean's effort to remake the nature of the Marquette roster -- and what that could mean for the program. On to the offseason!